Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] sched: optimize migration by forcing rmb() and updating to be called once

Byungchul Park
2015-11-18T00:02:18Z

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:55:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 08:37:00AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> > Which one do you think to be fixed? The one above migrate_task_rq_fair()?
> > I wonder if it would be ok even it does not hold pi_lock in
> > migrate_task_rq_fair(). If you say *no problem*, I will try to fix the
> > comment.
>
> The one above migrate_task_rq_fair() is obviously broken, as
> demonstrated by the move_queued_task() case.
>
> Also, pretty much all runnable task migration code will not take
> pi_lock, see also {pull,push}_{rt,dl}_task().
>
> Note that this is done very much by design, task_rq_lock() is the thing
> that fully serializes a task's scheduler state. Runnable tasks use
> rq->lock, waking tasks use pi_lock.
>
> > > I meant, if you call __set_task_cpu() before
> > > sched_class::migrate_task_rq(), in that case task_rq_lock() will no
> > > longer fully serialize against set_task_cpu().
> > >
> > > Because once you've called __set_task_cpu(), task_rq_lock() will acquire
> > > the _other_ rq->lock. And we cannot rely on our rq->lock to serialize
> > > things.
> >
> > I agree with you if migtrate_task_rq() can be serialized by rq->lock
> > without holding pi_lock. (even though I am still wondering..)
>
> move_queued_task() illustrates this.
>
> > But I thought it was no problem if migrate_task_rq() was serialized only
> > by pi_lock as the comment above the migrate_task_rq() describes, because
> > breaking rq->lock does not affect the sericalization by pi_lock.
>
> Right, but per the above, we cannot assume pi_lock is in fact held over
> this.

Thank you.

>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/